"Fuck freedom of speech, it's not what this is about."
It's exactly what this is about. As an almost Atheist (lacking the needed faith to really be one) I find the Quram mildly disturbing (as I do with other sacred texts, the Bible included) in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning. I respect, however, your right to your faith. You may believe in whatever you like, and I will defend your right to it against those who may want to take it away from you. But, in return for my respect, I demand from you the same respect. If I believe the cartoons are funny and worthy of publication, I demand you respect my right to draw, discuss or even (if the authors so agree) to reproduce them. By hiding behind the "biggest and dumbest asshole" metaphor, you excuse yourself, and the intolerant people who find it right to kill authors for offending their faith, from the obligation to respect others. Muslims are not the dumbest and obviously can learn to live in societies that don't share religiously intolerant laws.
Some of the cartoons were funny. I had a couple good laughs out of them. Would I be offended if they were about Christ (I was raised a Catholic)? No way. Would I be offended if they had been about scientists (I am an almost-Atheist)? Of course not. They are cartoons, meant to be funny and to, sometimes, question beliefs.
If your faith cannot withstand questioning then, perhaps, you should question yourself how deep and true it really is.
Even if you were supremely offended, you still do not have the right to kill the person who offended you. You can draw attention to the offenders insensitivity, decry their judgement, and comprehensively denounce what was said as vile, uncivilized, and hateful. You can even call for people to boycott the publisher or for the dismissal of the person responsible for the offense.
But you still are not justified to respond with violence.
The point is that it's childish to be offended by this. And, while we are at it, nobody has the right not to be offended. The risk of being offended is a pre-requisite for the right to offend others (as the Quram does with Christians and Jews alike, by "complementing" their sacred texts and, thus, considering them incomplete religions).
"I find the [it] mildly disturbing [...] in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning."
I have a suggestion for you: Head over to Germany and question the "absolute truth" of holocaust: numbers, methods, facts, etc. Lets see how long your "freedom of speech" is respected. (Will post your arrest and incarceration news here on HN!)
I'm not trying to be nasty here but really equating denial of the holocaust (an event that actually happened and we have extensive proof and documentation of) with religious beliefs (which have no evidence and need to be taken on faith) is somewhat offensive.
My intent was not to offend you or other readers. Further I do not find the notion of mass extermination of humans acceptable. However the comment I replied to posited the (imo false) notion that only religious beliefs are uniquely putting forward "absolute truths" and that the adherents of these beliefs are unique in resisting fact based analysis of their beliefs.
I am not aware of rigorous studies that address the scientific and engineering aspects of the taboo subject of holocaust. Rough back of napkin calculations of the numbers involved suggest a very substantial killing machine; killing factories, in fact. And as with any other matter that is hammered into my head from every corner, I personally like to gain a certain level of comfort regarding its veracity.
Since you seem to be aware of the "extensive proof and documentation" regarding this subject, I would be very grateful to see citations in literature so I can study them.
(This is quite helpful since I can not raise this "scientific" topic in polite society without suffering adverse social and possibly economic consequences)
The subjects that perplex me the most are:
1 - logistics: A handful of sites were used to kill people and dispose of bodies. (4 years of 12 hour days non-stop seems to indicate something around 30 people per hour non-stop.) How long does it take to reduce a human body to ashes? How much fuel does it take to do this? What sort of maintenance do these machines require? (I suppose the local crematorium can provide some factual numbers in this regard.)
2 - methodology: What chemicals were used to kill. How fast acting are these chemicals? How can these chemicals be delivered? How dangerous are they to the operators of the killing factory? What effects do they have on the factory infrastructure (corrosion, discoloration, etc.)?
3 - disposal: Assuming .2 cubic feet of ash per human body (rough guess), there should be somewhere near 1,000,000 cubic feet of human ashes around the slaughterhouses. Have they been found?
From what I understand, every critical scientific effort to date to investigate the above has had serious consequences for their investigators, including incarceration for some. (No doubt I will get my virtual share of the same as well.) In contrast, I am certain that beyond ridicule, the consequences of questioning the existence of Electron, and DNA are fairly minimal.
"How long does it take to reduce a human body to ashes? How much fuel does it take to do this?"
Humans have a lot of fat. I suppose it is possible to sustain combustion using human fat as fuel alone. The time it takes depend on temperature, amount of fuel and availability of oxygen.
"What chemicals were used to kill"
AFAIK, Carbon Monoxide was the preferred means. It poses no great risk to the operators if properly restricted and it quickly dissipates in the environment. It's also easy to generate from internal combustion engines and it was used in mobile gas chambers mounted in trucks where the exhaust was directed to a compartment where the prisoners were killed while being transported.
As for ash disposal, not all victims were cremated. There were many mass graves identified.
"every critical scientific effort to date to investigate the above has had serious consequences for their investigators"
I know of no critical scientific effort to investigate the Holocaust. Can anyone seriously believe the surviving witnesses are victims of a collective hallucination or part of a conspiracy to hide some "truth"? Can anyone discredit the exhaustive records kept about the "productivity" of the extermination fields?
Quite frankly, when I decided to answer your questions I had no idea this trip to one of the darkest moments of history would have the effect it had on me. It saddens me my species is capable of such a cold, directed, rational and efficient genocide. The possibility it may happen again frightens me deeply.
We should never forget the terrible atrocities we are capable of doing. This memory may be the only thing that prevents us from doing it again.
"It saddens me my species is capable of such a cold, directed, rational and efficient genocide. The possibility it may happen again frightens me deeply."
We're in agreement, here. And we frankly don't even need to reach that far back in history for evidence of the vile in our species. One look at what was done to Gaza and Iraq suffices.
The difference is that the Holocaust is something that really happened, with eyewitnesses and documents to prove it. The stuff in the Bible or the Koran is a matter of faith, and can't be proven by the scientific method. Personally, I think that the Bible and the Koran are a bunch of fairy tales written a long time ago to frighten people into doing things that will keep them from going to hell.
In my opinion, people unwilling to live in a society with true freedom of speech are cowards.
Here in the U.S., we allowed Ahmadinejad to come here and spout his Holocaust denial nonsense. Then we mock him mercilessly, and are glad that he shows us so clearly the kind of person we are dealing with.
Don't be afraid of speech. Use better, more persuasive speech to win over those who disagree with you. Anything else is a form of coercion.
I agree with you completely, but Muslims believe that the Koran is literal and that everything in it is 100% true. They believe that the Koran is the result of a scientific method, and that every character in a story is a 100% true eyewitness account, and that the Koran is as 100% accurate as a well researched book on World War II would be today.
I've noticed that people of other faiths (Christians, Hindus, Jews) tend to take their holy books a little bit more allegorically.
Personally, I believe that this unyielding approach to the Koran is a major cause in Islam's adoption into a modern day society.
I really can't see how Muslims can think that the Koran is the result of a scientific method. This is a book whose contents were supposedly dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel. This is a supernatural claim, not the natural. If people want to believe that the word of God was transmitted to human ears by an angel, that's fine, but please don't drag science into it.
It's exactly what this is about. As an almost Atheist (lacking the needed faith to really be one) I find the Quram mildly disturbing (as I do with other sacred texts, the Bible included) in that it proposes to be the absolute truth that admits no questioning. I respect, however, your right to your faith. You may believe in whatever you like, and I will defend your right to it against those who may want to take it away from you. But, in return for my respect, I demand from you the same respect. If I believe the cartoons are funny and worthy of publication, I demand you respect my right to draw, discuss or even (if the authors so agree) to reproduce them. By hiding behind the "biggest and dumbest asshole" metaphor, you excuse yourself, and the intolerant people who find it right to kill authors for offending their faith, from the obligation to respect others. Muslims are not the dumbest and obviously can learn to live in societies that don't share religiously intolerant laws.
Some of the cartoons were funny. I had a couple good laughs out of them. Would I be offended if they were about Christ (I was raised a Catholic)? No way. Would I be offended if they had been about scientists (I am an almost-Atheist)? Of course not. They are cartoons, meant to be funny and to, sometimes, question beliefs.
If your faith cannot withstand questioning then, perhaps, you should question yourself how deep and true it really is.